Creation: Genesis contradictions? - by Don Batten

[OzSpen]

No, it's not.

I'm making a point.

Being that not all claims are supported by the same level of evidence. The contents of the claim has to be taken into account.

There is good reason to accept the eyewitness accounts from The Endeavour. First, because we have multiple independent sources and perhaps we even still have the ship itself. And there's nothing out of the ordinary in the claim itself...

If my friend tells me he saw a nice Ferarri the other day, I will probably just believe him. Ferarri's exist and people buy them. It's a bit more out of the ordinary then seeing a Ford, Opel or BMW, but there are enough Ferarri's in people's hands so that everyone gets to witness one on the streets from time to time.

There's nothing fundamentally unreasonable about those claims and they fit the general circumstances.

But if my friend also tells me that this Ferarri had wings and could fly... then I won't be buying that claim anymore. Or if one says that the Endeavour was operated by gnomes and unicorns, then that claim to becomes to out of the ordinary to simply accept at face value.

The exact same goes for the supernatural claims of the bible.

There's nothing wrong with stories about a preacher-type human who was giving speeches in Jeruzalem or whatever and who succeeded in gathering some following. Not really out of the ordinary, this was rather common back then.

But proceed with claims about raising the dead, making the blind see, walking on water, etc........... well, I guess you'll get it by now.


To summarize:
1. we know today that "eyewitness" accounts is about the least reliable type of evidence we have

2. extra ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. Eyewitness accounts are the exact opposite of "extra-ordinary evidence". Such accounts are rather the most ordinary you will find and also the least reliable.

Here you give another red herring fallacy. You did not address the issue I raised of what you did and the nature of your red herring.

Your 2 summary points are loaded with your presuppositions. Your premises are oozing out of those statements. Why don't you start another thread to deal with extraordinary evidence?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is that why detectives go around asking, "What did you see?"

No, it's why detectives look for additional physical / empirical evidence to cooberate or double check what claimed eyewitnesses told them.

You might also want to look at this:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Physical evidence trumps "testimony" every single time.

I suppose if someone gave you the license number of a hit-skip, you would consider it "least reliable"?

Suppose you go after that car owner and then it turns out that that particular license plate had a speeding ticket accross town at the time of the accident.

What will be given more credibility?
Will you assume that the speeding ticket is wrong?
Or that the "eyewitness" made some kind of mistake, perhaps even on purpose?

 

[OzSpen]

Is that why detectives go around asking, "What did you see?"

I suppose if someone gave you the license number of a hit-skip, you would consider it "least reliable"?

When my wife asked me last week, 'What happened when you took our 2 grandchildren to the school dentist? What was the outcome?' On the basis of DogmaHunter's argumentation, my eyewitness testimony would be 'the least reliable type of witness'. There were only two adult eyewitnesses at the mobile dentist's van - the dentist and me. The dentist can give eyewitness testimony to what went on in my grandchildren's mouths. I can give eyewitness testimony to what happened before and after those events.

Believe me, those eyewitness testimonies are reliable in giving an overall summary of what happened. It is hogwash to say that my eyewitness testimony to what happened before and after the dental visit is 'the least reliable type of evidence'.

Your example is superb. Regularly on the TV news, police are asking for others who saw the events surrounding an accident or some other event to which they were called. Eyewitness testimony is used regularly to help solve criminal investigations.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

No, it's why detectives look for additional physical / empirical evidence to cooberate or double check what claimed eyewitnesses told them.

You might also want to look at this:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Physical evidence trumps "testimony" every single time.




Suppose you go after that car owner and then it turns out that that particular license plate had a speeding ticket accross town at the time of the accident.

What will be given more credibility?
Will you assume that the speeding ticket is wrong?
Or that the "eyewitness" made some kind of mistake, perhaps even on purpose?

Physical evidence at a crash scene doesn't tell how and why it happened.

I don't recommend you join the police force.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Here you give another red herring fallacy. You did not address the issue I raised of what you did and the nature of your red herring.

I clarified why I asked the question. I was making a point.
I see you are desperately trying not to address the elephant in the room.

Your 2 summary points are loaded with your presuppositions.

No presuppositions. Just pointing out that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.

I can reasonably accept an eyewitness claim to have seen a Ferarri.
I can not reasonably accept an eyewitness claim that that Ferarri was a flying car.

The more outlandish a claim, the higher the standard of evidence becomes.
Knowing that eyewitness already isn't the most reliable available, it's easy to see how it is totally not acceptable for outlandish claims.

Your premises are oozing out of those statements. Why don't you start another thread to deal with extraordinary evidence?

I don't need to.
You're the one who brought up the point about "why accept eyewitness for the endeavour, but not for the bible?".

I just explained why.

Why are you complaining about having your question answered?
Or is it that you just don't like the answer?

 

[DogmaHunter]

When my wife asked me last week, 'What happened when you took our 2 grandchildren to the school dentist? What was the outcome?' On the basis of DogmaHunter's argumentation, my eyewitness testimony would be 'the least reliable type of witness'.

And it is.

Suppose your answer is "ow, he just filled a cavity".
And when your wife then looks in one of the children's mouth, she notices that the child suddenly has bracers.

This evidence would trump your eyewitness account.

Physical evidence always does.
Because "eyewitnesses" can be misinformed, mistaken or simply lying.

There were only two adult eyewitnesses at the mobile dentist's van - the dentist and me. The dentist can give eyewitness testimony to what went on in my grandchildren's mouths. I can give eyewitness testimony to what happened before and after those events.

And if the physical evidence doesn't match your testimony, it's your testimony that goes out the window - not the physical evidence.

Believe me, those eyewitness testimonies are reliable in giving an overall summary of what happened. It is hogwash to say that my eyewitness testimony to what happened before and after the dental visit is 'the least reliable type of evidence'.

Since contradicting physical evidence would overrule your testimony, clearly your testimony is the least reliable type.

Testimony never overrules contradicting physical evidence.

Your example is superb.

I agree, but it's superb at proving my point...
A speeding ticket from accross town at the time of the accident would overrule the testimony. Courts would assume the witness to be mistaken or lying. Because physical evidence always trumps testimony.

Regularly on the TV news, police are asking for others who saw the events surrounding an accident or some other event to which they were called. Eyewitness testimony is used regularly to help solve criminal investigations.

And yet, when physical evidence contradicts the claims of testimonies, the physical evidence always wins.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Physical evidence at a crash scene doesn't tell how and why it happened.

Errr.... yes it does.
Physical evidence from a crash scene can tell you where the cars were coming from, what speeds they were driving, how hard they smashed the breaks, etc...

This is how you expose people who lie in their testimony. They will tell you what they supposedly saw and then you look at the crash site to see if it fits the testimony. And if it doesn't, you don't assume that crash site is "wrong".

I don't recommend you join the police force.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

physical evidence trumps testimony.

 

[SkyWriting]

Even if there wasn't debate among christian scholars about the authorship of 1 peter, and there is, this still isn't eyewitness testimony OF THE RESURRECTION.

They be dead now. All that's left of them are historical records.
Do you have evidence that the historical writers are untrustworthy?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Your request is unsupported.
If we assume the translation is correct,
then we can conclude the writer has an opinion on the events.

Assuming my KJV translation is correct. What part of this verse tells me it is the writers' opinion rather than fact?

Judges 1:19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.​

 

[46AND2]

You are missing a fundamental. Luke is an historian. Most historians are not eyewitnesses. Have all of the biographers and historians of Abraham Lincoln's life been eyewitnesses of Lincoln's life and death? Of course not. However, some of those historians could have obtained evidence from eyewitnesses.

Luke tells us that one of the sources for his information about Jesus' life and death is 'just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us' (Luke 1:2 ESV). Eyewitnesses delivered information about Jesus to Luke, the historian.

The integrity of Luke as an historian is well documented in Professor I Howard Marshall 1970. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Swedish scholar, Professor Samuel Byrskog, has examined the elements, 'From Eyewitness to Gospel Story' (Byrskog 2002:265-299) and his conclusions are radically different from yours, as are those of Scottish Professor Richard Bauckham in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Bauckham 2006).

I didn't come down in the last historical shower when examining the historical evidence for the Gospels (incl. Luke) and their use of eyewitness evidence as one of their sources.

You seem to be shooting wide of the mark when understanding the use of eyewitness testimony by historians, as with Luke.

Works consulted
Bauckham, R 2006. Jesus and the eyewitnesses: The Gospels as eyewitness testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Byrskog, S 2002. Story as history – history as story: The Gospel tradition in the context of ancient oral history. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc.

I'm sorry, but it is you who is missing a fundamental. A person who is not an eyewitness cannot give an eyewitness testimony, by definition.

It does not matter how good of an historian he was, it does not matter the content he gives, it does not matter how reliable his sources were, it doesn't even matter if his testimony is true.

I am not arguing the veracity of Luke's statement. I simply asked you to provide an example of TESTIMONY GIVEN BY AN EYEWITNESS, which you claimed the Bible contains.

I don't know how I can make this more clear.

 

[46AND2]

They be dead now. All that's left of them are historical records.
Do you have evidence that the historical writers are untrustworthy?

I simply asked for Oz to support his claim that the Bible contains eyewitness testimony.

 

[46AND2]

That's a red herring logical fallacy.

Your entire response to me has been a red herring. I am not arguing for or against the veracity of Luke's hearsay testimony. That is irrelevant to the topic.

 

[HitchSlap]

There are not contradictions in Genesis.

The answer is in the last paragraphs:

Genesis was written like many historical accounts with an overview or summary of events leading up to the events of most interest first, followed by a detailed account which often recaps relevant events in the overview in greater detail. Genesis 1, the ‘big picture’ is clearly concerned with the sequence of events. The events are in chronological sequence, with day 1, day 2, evening and morning, etc. The order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2. In recapping events they are not necessarily mentioned in chronological order, but in the order which makes most sense to the focus of the account. For example, the animals are mentioned in verse 19, after Adam was created, because it was after Adam was created that he was shown the animals, not that they were created after Adam.

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation.

The final word on this matter, however, should really be given to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 and 5, the Lord is addressing the subject of marriage, and says: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”

Notice how in the very same statement, Jesus refers to both Genesis 1 (verse 27b: ‘male and female he created them’) and Genesis 2 (verse 24: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.’). Obviously, by combining both in this way, He in no way regarded them as separate, contradictory accounts.

This is nice and all, but what would you suggest for a guy like me who sees no reason to accept ancient creation myths as literal history? Do you not agree that we should attempt to understand creation myths in context of their respective cultures?

 

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

This is nice and all, but what would you suggest for a guy like me who sees no reason to accept ancient creation myths as literal history? Do you not agree that we should attempt to understand creation myths in context of their respective cultures?

Creation of Genesis is not a myth. Bible has not scientific mistakes.

Evolution is not proved.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.

Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.

New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is nice and all, but what would you suggest for a guy like me who sees no reason to accept ancient creation myths as literal history?

My suggestion is for you to stop presupposing all creation stories are a myth, and at least start considering that one ... just one ... might be bona fide history.

 

[OzSpen]

I clarified why I asked the question. I was making a point.
I see you are desperately trying not to address the elephant in the room.

No presuppositions. Just pointing out that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.

I can reasonably accept an eyewitness claim to have seen a Ferarri.
I can not reasonably accept an eyewitness claim that that Ferarri was a flying car.

The more outlandish a claim, the higher the standard of evidence becomes.
Knowing that eyewitness already isn't the most reliable available, it's easy to see how it is totally not acceptable for outlandish claims.

I don't need to.
You're the one who brought up the point about "why accept eyewitness for the endeavour, but not for the bible?".

I just explained why.

Why are you complaining about having your question answered?
Or is it that you just don't like the answer?

Please tell me how you are going to objectively describe extraordinary claims without an extraordinary, supernatural God? However, your worldview won't allow for this God. Therefore, we cannot have a reasonable discussion when you automatically exclude some of the evidence for the supernatural God.

You are engaging in a question begging fallacy.

We cannot have a rational conversation when you engage in this kind of fallacious reasoning.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Errr.... yes it does.
Physical evidence from a crash scene can tell you where the cars were coming from, what speeds they were driving, how hard they smashed the breaks, etc...

This is how you expose people who lie in their testimony. They will tell you what they supposedly saw and then you look at the crash site to see if it fits the testimony. And if it doesn't, you don't assume that crash site is "wrong".

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

physical evidence trumps testimony.

Not so. The police in my country call for eyewitness testimony. Of course, all evidence available needs to be examined, but eyewitness testimony is considered of considerable value.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm sorry, but it is you who is missing a fundamental. A person who is not an eyewitness cannot give an eyewitness testimony, by definition.

It does not matter how good of an historian he was, it does not matter the content he gives, it does not matter how reliable his sources were, it doesn't even matter if his testimony is true.

I am not arguing the veracity of Luke's statement. I simply asked you to provide an example of TESTIMONY GIVEN BY AN EYEWITNESS, which you claimed the Bible contains.

I don't know how I can make this more clear.

And I did. But you are not open to the evidence. I'm not going to continue spinning the wheels with your begging the question fallacies.

Bye

 

[OzSpen]

I'm sorry, but it is you who is missing a fundamental. A person who is not an eyewitness cannot give an eyewitness testimony, by definition.

It does not matter how good of an historian he was, it does not matter the content he gives, it does not matter how reliable his sources were, it doesn't even matter if his testimony is true.

I am not arguing the veracity of Luke's statement. I simply asked you to provide an example of TESTIMONY GIVEN BY AN EYEWITNESS, which you claimed the Bible contains.

I don't know how I can make this more clear.

A person who is an historian can report an eyewitness testimony. But for you to accept such a view, it would shatter the view you are pushing here.

 

[46AND2]

And I did. But you are not open to the evidence. I'm not going to continue spinning the wheels with your begging the question fallacies.

Bye

So, basically the answer is, no, you don't know the difference between eyewitness testimony and hearsay. Even your journalist analogy demonstrates that.

You also seem to have difficulty properly identifying fallacies.